But I would argue, the government is stepping out of it’s bounds and picking “winners-and-losers” when it funds outside tech developments (Not talking about the national labs nor some of the other public-private partnerships). By attempting this the government actually introduces more market forces that introduce inefficiencies in the free market system, instead of correcting the externalities like it would with the gasoline tax.

Besides, it’s not even necessary. The pure economics of the matter say that if you actually charge the true price of fossil fuels, current renewables are absolutely economical in their own right, without any subsidies. Simply show the end consumer the costs of subsidized fossil fuels and the mass market will make the switch VERY rapidly.

I do agree, however, than we do “subsidize” them quite heavily. (For lack of a better term)

In addition, oil companies get some pretty sweet lease deals on public lands.

I don’t think we should make a big effort to limit the meaning of “subsidy”. That let’s the fossil fuel industry get away with too much.

We could talk about “direct subsidies” and “indirect subsidies”. I think people would start to better understand what oil and coal actually cost us if we switch away from the term “externalities” and to “indirect subsidies”.

Back to the LEAF it get better and lower in cost each year. If gas was not subsidies like it is sold in Europe at $10-12 a gallon ,EVeryone will drive an efficient Electric that is over 80% efficient compared to an old gas car that is only 15% efficient and make deadly pollution like carbon mon-oxide and di-oxide !